Russia's new strategic missile to take off in two years

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   
Russia today is currently reporting that Russia will create and implement new balistic nuclear missiles capable of bypasing current defend shields, although critics have slammed the project, claiming it is based on 30 year old technology.
Russia Today News Link

The program also envisions the creation of inter-continental ballistic missiles capable of beating all existing defense shields.




This is also from the same article

"We already have lots of ideas for the construction of these weapons,” declared a chief engineer from the Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology, Yury Solomonov. “All the decisions were approved by Russia’s Defense Ministry.”


Related Articles:
Russian designer say U.S is unable to build capable missile defence system

In an interview with the Russian news agency ITAR-TASS, the chief designer of the Moscow Heat Hardware Institute, Yuri Solomonov, said that the newest Russian intercontinental missiles will be able to pass all existing and prospective missile defense systems.

Russia's new warheads 'invunrable' to missile defence shields

The unique work carried out last year allows Russia to take an absolutely new step in creating a new type of combat equipment, he told Interfax. It is the result of integrating combat equipment of ballistic type and individual means of its separation. The achievement will end all talk about Russia’s fight against “a non-existing system of missile defense of an imaginary enemy
edit on 19-3-2011 by SpeachM1litant because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Its not very nice building nuclear missiles, is it...

Fukushima coming to a city near you, courtesy of the Russian Gov't.

Some day, the world is going to wake up and hang every single person who had anything to do with threatening anyone else with weapons of mass destruction.

Save your money, Moscow.

Mother Nature says, you're gonna need it...



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay
Its not very nice building nuclear missiles, is it...

Fukushima coming to a city near you, courtesy of the Russian Gov't.

Some day, the world is going to wake up and hang every single person who had anything to do with threatening anyone else with weapons of mass destruction.

Save your money, Moscow.

Mother Nature says, you're gonna need it...


Then why is the US developing a new generation of nuclear weapons?


This is in response to the NATO threat. At the peak of anti-nuclear weapon movements in the early 2000s, both the US and Russia agreed to a set list of protocols to halt nuclear weapon development and dismantle their current stockpiles. Then the notion came to completely dismantle all nuclear weapons, and Bush came into power. Bush then proceeded to drop the US out of most of the nuclear weapons treaties (aside from the testing treaties that only allow underground detonations) and even dropped out of the anti-ballistic missile treaty which limited both Russia and the US to only one ABM defensive location each, proving that the Americans were after first-strike capability against the Russians.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Dimitri, Dimitri, Dimitri- listen to me, Dimitri...

The argument that because the US or any other country decides to act like a sphincter does not make it right for Russia to follow suit. drag them into the sumo ring of the UN and beat them into doing the right thing the gentlemanly way.

Nuclear is going to bring about the extinction of the human race, if not strangled into submission civilly.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Dimitri, Dimitri, Dimitri- listen to me, Dimitri...

The argument that because the US or any other country decides to act like a sphincter does not make it right for Russia to follow suit. drag them into the sumo ring of the UN and beat them into doing the right thing the gentlemanly way.

Nuclear is going to bring about the extinction of the human race, if not strangled into submission civilly.


You are completely wrong.

Yes, when a nation with empiracal ambitions decides to abandon nuclear treaties and build more nuclear weapons and create a better first-strike capability against its rivals, then its rivals obviously have to keep up.

Perhaps you should look at a map of US installations around Russia alone in ex-Soviet bloc nations where the CIA instilled pro-west "revolutions". They have radar networks, ballistic missile defense systems, American bases... The US is provocative. To blame Russia for modernizing their nuclear weapons while the US does the same is hypocrisy.

And the UN? The UN, sadly, has no balls or the US would be sanctioned right up its arse by now.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
We have Star Wars like since 1945 and so did the Russians.
Missiles and Rockets are the sub ultimate weapons that are so slow compared to 300 miles
per second there was never chance of any atomic bomb hitting the ground.
Well unless the pilot sacrificed himself but the indications are that the immovable Tesla ether
ship can destroy anything nearby so fear not the ships are up 24/7 by the looks of the haze
coming down.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Russians are beating high tech with low tech.

If a THAAD missile is going to try and use a non-explosive warhead to penetrate your missile.......merely design a shotgun style missile that will detect THAAD coming up and FIRE in shotgun method the forward half when THAAD gets close so THAAD only is able to hit the rear stage in the split second it has.

Or they could put thousands of depleted uranium projectiles in the warhead and fire them off when THAAD gets close so the thousands of depleted uranium projectiles continues to travel forward and rain down on the country they are pointed at. Shotgun style.

THAAD was relic'd to another wasteful Trillion dollar project by the time it was put into the field. Low tech can beat high tech.

What if the first russian missile instead has hundreds of thousands of magnesium/depleted uranium projectiles and is launched at THAAD....THAAD goes to intercept and the russian warhead fires in shotgun manner launching hundreds of thousands of projectiles to rain down on the THAAD stationing area....rendering it's radar useless.....that's when the real warheads sneak by.

Russia just doesn't have enough military hardware around the world or in space to render all of our assets worthless. We have them by the numbers and positions we dominate. Russia will cease to exist by 2013.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius
Russia just doesn't have enough military hardware around the world or in space to render all of our assets worthless. We have them by the numbers and positions we dominate. Russia will cease to exist by 2013.


You had a good post until that.

Russia has a much larger and efficient strategic missile fleet than the US. Russians also have good mobile launcher capabilities, and considered first strike capable since they drive around Sibera all the time. The Russians also have larger stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons than the Americans.

And considering that Russia has a growing economy and vast resources that they use for geopolitical power, they will be contending with the Chinese for superpower status when the US collapses.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Then why is the US developing a new generation of nuclear weapons?



Which are? Since 1990 there have been no new designs of US nuclear warheads or nuclear weapons delivery systems such as missiles.

Russia by contrast has continued development and deployment of middle range and long range nuclear missiles. Information about warhead designs and production is not publicly available.



This is in response to the NATO threat. At the peak of anti-nuclear weapon movements in the early 2000s, both the US and Russia agreed to a set list of protocols to halt nuclear weapon development and dismantle their current stockpiles. Then the notion came to completely dismantle all nuclear weapons, and Bush came into power. Bush then proceeded to drop the US out of most of the nuclear weapons treaties (aside from the testing treaties that only allow underground detonations) and even dropped out of the anti-ballistic missile treaty which limited both Russia and the US to only one ABM defensive location each, proving that the Americans were after first-strike capability against the Russians.


Subsequent events do not prove such a thing. Russia withdrew from START II in response to the USA withdrawing from ABM treaty. The SORT agreement between presidents Putin and George W Bush went into effect in 2002.

The USA unilaterally deactivated and dismantled all MIRV ballistic missiles. The only remaining operational ICBM of the USA is the Minuteman III, which was first deployed in 1970. The USA loads only one warhead per missile.

The GWB and Obama administrations negotiated the START III treaty and was signed on 8 April 2010 by Presidents Medveded and Obama.

Compared to Russia, the actions of the USA since 1990 show a complete disinterest in capable first-strike strategic technology (i.e. modern MIRV missiles) against a technological adversary.

The USA is interested in small "bunker buster" but the only such weapon actually produced is the B61-11 which is a modification of a design from the 1960's.

The USA's military has not been seriously interested in nuclear weaponry since 1990, their priorities are clearly elsewhere.
edit on 30-3-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
To blame Russia for modernizing their nuclear weapons while the US does the same is hypocrisy.


Russia is modernizing nuclear weapons and missiles, including new MIRV (destabilizing) deployment.

The USA is not modernizing nuclear weapons, or missiles.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
To blame Russia for modernizing their nuclear weapons while the US does the same is hypocrisy.


Russia is modernizing nuclear weapons and missiles, including new MIRV (destabilizing) deployment.

The USA is not modernizing nuclear weapons, or missiles.



US sure has been conducting sub-critical, underground nuclear testing. I wish I could find the sources for it.

And yes, the US has been developing a new generation of nuclear weapons. They are interested in nuclear bunker busters that can defeat superbunkers that are located in Russia, China, North Korea, etc.

US has also been sending a lot of military satallites into space over the past decade too. I have little doubt that this includes space weaponry, if not nuclear weapons that can be deployed from space (which bypasses launch detection of an ICBM), then other massively destructive tech like tungsten-rod launchers.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
To blame Russia for modernizing their nuclear weapons while the US does the same is hypocrisy.


Russia is modernizing nuclear weapons and missiles, including new MIRV (destabilizing) deployment.

The USA is not modernizing nuclear weapons, or missiles.




US sure has been conducting sub-critical, underground nuclear testing. I wish I could find the sources for it.

And yes, the US has been developing a new generation of nuclear weapons. They are interested in nuclear bunker busters that can defeat superbunkers that are located in Russia, China, North Korea, etc.



Is the USA creating and deploying new models and units of nuclear weapons?

(a) yes
(b) no

I believe the answer is (b): no. The reliable replacement warhead and bunker buster investigations were denied by Congress. In the USA you can always follow the money, priority areas for military spending are always obvious.

Is the USA creating and deploying new models and units of long range ballistic nuclear missiles?

(a) yes
(b) no.

The answer is (b) no.

Russia has said quite clearly that they are doing so---they are making new generations of missiles better than their existing ones, which were already substantially more modern than the 1970's missiles of the USA.
edit on 31-3-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-3-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-3-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-3-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


I'm going to say it again, the US has been focusing on developing tactical nuclear weapons for use in combat. Russia has focused on developing strategic nuclear weapons. Both countries are developing and deploying.

You want an example of when the US was caught with deployed nuclear weapons? There was an incident a few years back when a B-52 crew were all over the media because they had fully armed nuclear missiles loaded. The story was spun as to make it seems as if crew incompetence allowed fully armed nuclear weapons to be deployed, but really...



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
reply to post by mbkennel
 


I'm going to say it again, the US has been focusing on developing tactical nuclear weapons for use in combat. Russia has focused on developing strategic nuclear weapons. Both countries are developing and deploying.

You want an example of when the US was caught with deployed nuclear weapons? There was an incident a few years back when a B-52 crew were all over the media because they had fully armed nuclear missiles loaded. The story was spun as to make it seems as if crew incompetence allowed fully armed nuclear weapons to be deployed, but really...


This doesn't look like "deployed nuclear weapons" because if they were, they would never be described as a mistake.

All nuclear powers have deployed nuclear weapons. All submarines on station and operational missile silos are "deployed nuclear weapons" because they are in the operational chain of command.



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
reply to post by mbkennel
 


I'm going to say it again, the US has been focusing on developing tactical nuclear weapons for use in combat. Russia has focused on developing strategic nuclear weapons. Both countries are developing and deploying.

You want an example of when the US was caught with deployed nuclear weapons? There was an incident a few years back when a B-52 crew were all over the media because they had fully armed nuclear missiles loaded. The story was spun as to make it seems as if crew incompetence allowed fully armed nuclear weapons to be deployed, but really...


This doesn't look like "deployed nuclear weapons" because if they were, they would never be described as a mistake.

All nuclear powers have deployed nuclear weapons. All submarines on station and operational missile silos are "deployed nuclear weapons" because they are in the operational chain of command.


No crap. Hence why there was a big cover up and "reforms" from this incident.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   
i have a close frind in the ukraine who was following a couple of RT-2pm topol missiles for a couple of days. He said he was about 3/4 mile behind it watch it as it turned on a dirt road parked on a hill and raised its missile. He did this for a couple of days even taped one. Then a few days later two non-russian men in russian uniforms wearing white berets took him in a black suv took his video and pics? whats with that?



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by Chakotay
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Dimitri, Dimitri, Dimitri- listen to me, Dimitri...

The argument that because the US or any other country decides to act like a sphincter does not make it right for Russia to follow suit. drag them into the sumo ring of the UN and beat them into doing the right thing the gentlemanly way.

Nuclear is going to bring about the extinction of the human race, if not strangled into submission civilly.


You are completely wrong.

Yes, when a nation with empiracal ambitions decides to abandon nuclear treaties and build more nuclear weapons and create a better first-strike capability against its rivals, then its rivals obviously have to keep up.



You realize you are talking about Russia? The USA has not built a nuclear weapon system since the 1980's (MX), which has since been permanently dismantled. Russia is building a new nuclear weapons system.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   
yes i but what obama plans to do is completely de-nuclear-ize the us like south africa did. i believe that would be a total disaster. we would have other rival countries such as russia who is always doing more nuclear technologies we get rid of our even do maybe 100 we would be bad. I am for nuclear weapons which i think we continue and produce more as we dismantle old ones. a nuclear with another nation is possible or probable. others say the same or less likely that a supervolcano eruption happens tomorrow.so what?





new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join